Thank you for explaining that. I was trying to figure out what joke was being referenced by GPs statement that, because Japan hates the iPhone, the iPhone had become self-aware.
Certain rights sure, but I'm not sure I see how disallowing someone to release something to the public domain (which this license seems to be trying to re-allow, but IANAL) would effect that.
As unlikely a scenario as this is, lets just pretend for a second that a clause is put into a contract stating that something must go public domain. How exactly does the RIAA profit from this? It just doesn't seem like something that artists need protecting from.
The system has been in place for over 220 years in this country and your just now objecting to it.
GP is over 220 years old?:o
But seriously, just because a system is old that doesn't mean we don't have the right to object to it. That's just nonsense.
And please don't take this in any context other than exactly what it says. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with this whole royalty vs elected officials discussion. Merely pointing out that, just because someone was born 200+ years after something was put into place, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to object to it.
I mostly just skimmed the discussion, but I wanted to add an additional distinction that seemed to be lacking.
In your examples, I would expect it to be pretty common SOP to already have such things written down and documented somewhere prior to the employment termination. Passwords typically aren't due to security concerns.
That being said, as someone else pointed out, Childs probably shouldn't have been the only person with the passwords anyway, since what if he suddenly died one day?
I think you mean "do in", not "do". "Doing" one's colleague would be more in the vein of Danielle Steele.
Or the researcher is secretly needing arsenic to do his more brilliant colleague in the old Victorian-era way, having learnt from too many Agatha Christie novels.
GP did say "do in", GP merely added in who they would be doing in. Admittedly I did need to reread it a couple of times before it would parse correctly, though I never thought GP meant sex. What sorts of sexual fetishes did Victorian-era people have that involved arsenic? o.0
The game is planned for the PS2, PS3, PSP, mobile devices, Xbox 360, Wii, and DS.
I'm sure this isn't the first game with a PS2 AND a PS3 release (thought it is the first one I've noticed), but it seems like it says something when, in addition to all the current gen systems, a company also releases a game to a single last gen system. I just wish I knew what.
Now that I think about it.. back when I was a wage-slave to Big Chicken, they did supply our uniforms (hat, shirt, and pants) at no cost to us. Although if we wanted the special slip-resistant shoes we had to buy them ourselves. I guess because that wasn't a required part of the uniform.
Interesting... does that mean I can bill my employer for the clothes I wear at work, the transportation I use to get to and from work, the residence I go to to become refreshed for the next work day, etc?
I'm sure you don't actually think that, but I'm curious why there is a difference between all those items, and an internet connection.
Those who expect to lead the grasshoppers life while I lead the ants life and then compel my kid through economics to care for them in their old age in addition to caring for me, well, I WANT them to go take a nap in the snow.
I just want to make one thing clear. There is a huge difference between someone who wishes/expects to be pampered and coddled and sit on their lazy ass while hard-working individuals care for them, and someone who has no problem paying their way, but is not interested in playing society's little games. I agree that the former are assholes. But near as I can tell you either disagree that there is a difference and feel that both should share the same lack of rights/freedoms/privileges (which I notice you still fail to define), or I simply hadn't made myself clear enough.
And unless you honestly believe Monty Python's sketch, you really shouldn't make the argument that a sperm and an egg are conscious individuals, and that when joined, they form a being that is equal to the sum of its parts. Since you seemed to be ok with birth control (though only under certain conditions), I figured you probably don't believe that.
There's a difference between choosing to download some package, and having a "fix it" button. "Fix it" implies that what you are being sent will work on your current system, which I believe is what TFA is trying to get at.
It's an interesting concept, but not everyone does agree with the existence of the death penalty.
"Then it should be abolished."
I'm sure there are plenty of people who do not agree with jury duty, but that doesn't mean it should be abolished.
Perhaps.. to expand upon the idea, if the randomly chosen citizen can't pull the lever, that inmate gets life in prison? Sounds kinda unfair though.
Just to be clear, I agree with the concept of the death penalty, but I believe in the old saying "better a hundred criminals go free, than one innocent person be put away", and am not confident that the government hasn't ever accidentally executed anyone, and am not confident that it won't happen in the future.
You say that legislating adulthood is easy, because all you have to do is "restrict adult privileges to parents." But really, all you've done is shifted the problem. How do you define what an "adult privilege" is?
Birth control for people in their 30s who have families already is not the same as using birth control to neuter yourself and live a self-centered life forever.
I guess I've got no problem restricting certain things to those tasked with raising the next generation (we'll leave just what those things are for another day), but no one ever asked to be born. Some of us just want to live out our lives quietly without interfering in the affairs of others, and if any of these "adult privileges" of which you would have taken from people like that includes such rights as the right to decide for oneself how to treat ones body (smoking, drinking, drugs both recreational and medicinal, etc), well, that I've got a serious problem with.
Not an attack against you personally, but you leave "adult privileges" undefined, so I can only guess what is included in such.
A well-armed lamb is just as frightening and dangerous as a wolf.
And I believe that's exactly the point, to get everyone on equal ground.
If just one exists?
Your previous sentence is based on the wolves outnumbering the sheep. Make up your mind.
The ratio of wolves to lambs is irrelevant, but if you've any further complaints against the quote, I suggest you take them up with one Mr Benjamin Franklin.:P
I may be mistaken, but I believe the point Ben Franklin was making with that quote was that the wolves are already well-armed (teeth and claws), we're just leveling the playing field by arming the lamb.
As I said in an above reply, this was just pointing out one possible scenario where destroying all of a single species of bug could have farther reaching effects than one might initially expect. I only stopped at it effecting the bat population because I couldn't come up with a potential way to continue. But you bring up a good point here:
Except for the fact that the bat population would drop short-term, other bug populations would grow, and bats would become predators on them, restoring equilibrium.
I did not figure mosquitoes were competing on resources with other bugs, so I did not figure other bug populations would grow until after the bats disappeared from some theoretical disease.
And just to clarify, I have no doubt that life will continue to survive and evolve until our sun goes red-giant in 5 billion years or so. If we kill all mosquitoes, in the long term it won't have really mattered. But it just might matter enough in the short term.
It's possible. Notice that nowhere did I say how probable it was, I was merely pointing out a scenario where it could have far reaching effects beyond what one might expect from destroying all of a simple species of bug. That was all I was doing, nothing more, nothing less.
Please, lets try and keep this thread joke free, as I was being completely serious when I mentioned running through the door. Unlike the dozen or so other posts of a similar nature.
Which speaking of.. it kind of amuses me that, despite being the only person to point out seriously that TFS is flawed in its attempt to indicate that running through a burning door is a stupid idea, my comment is somehow redundant.
1) MAD only works if all sides want to continue living (I don't know how the middle east actually feels, just bringing up a point to indicate why it doesn't always work).
2) Going back to the cold war (which I can only guess is what you meant when you said that MAD is an ok tactic for the west), I don't think it was ever an intentional tactic in the west, merely a way of stating that being tied with the enemy is acceptable, just don't fall behind.
Definitely eliminating the mosquitoes is what he should be working for.
I am sure they server no ecological role at all.
I can't tell if you're being serious with that comment or not.
At any rate, just to play Devil's Advocate here and name at least one situation where they could play a significant ecological role, off the top of my head I'm sure it'd effect the bat population. Which in turn could effect the populations of other bugs, causing them to grow. Sure, initially the bat population would just shrink to fit their reduced food sources, and the other bug populations would remain unchanged, but a shrunken population means less diversion between the bats which makes them more susceptible to, say, an illness wiping them all out, which then the other bugs populations would grow.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
I suppose if we're all lambs, then it doesn't matter. But if just one wolf exists, then no, owning a weapon does not automatically make someone a "narrow minded, violent brute".
Sixth - Make sure all doors which have been deemed emergency exits will not open until up to 30 seconds after you push up against them.
I know it sounds stupid.. hell, I agree that it is stupid to make an emergency exit function in such a manner, but the point of your list seems to be enhancing the simulation to accurately reflect reality, and making emergency doors that open instantly doesn't.
If anyone is wondering where I've encountered such doors, just ask anyone staying in the dorms of UMBC.
Am I the only one who remembers the basic concept of "Stop, Drop, and Roll"? If I was in a burning building, and came across a burning door, if it led to the outside you bet your ass I'd run right through it. Better a few scorch-marks from flames that can be put out by such a simple concept, than the alternative of burning to death.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for explaining that. I was trying to figure out what joke was being referenced by GPs statement that, because Japan hates the iPhone, the iPhone had become self-aware.
Certain rights sure, but I'm not sure I see how disallowing someone to release something to the public domain (which this license seems to be trying to re-allow, but IANAL) would effect that.
As unlikely a scenario as this is, lets just pretend for a second that a clause is put into a contract stating that something must go public domain. How exactly does the RIAA profit from this? It just doesn't seem like something that artists need protecting from.
The system has been in place for over 220 years in this country and your just now objecting to it.
GP is over 220 years old? :o
But seriously, just because a system is old that doesn't mean we don't have the right to object to it. That's just nonsense.
And please don't take this in any context other than exactly what it says. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with this whole royalty vs elected officials discussion. Merely pointing out that, just because someone was born 200+ years after something was put into place, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to object to it.
I mostly just skimmed the discussion, but I wanted to add an additional distinction that seemed to be lacking.
In your examples, I would expect it to be pretty common SOP to already have such things written down and documented somewhere prior to the employment termination. Passwords typically aren't due to security concerns.
That being said, as someone else pointed out, Childs probably shouldn't have been the only person with the passwords anyway, since what if he suddenly died one day?
You must not watch a lot of CBS...
I think you mean "do in", not "do". "Doing" one's colleague would be more in the vein of Danielle Steele.
Or the researcher is secretly needing arsenic to do his more brilliant colleague in the old Victorian-era way, having learnt from too many Agatha Christie novels.
GP did say "do in", GP merely added in who they would be doing in. Admittedly I did need to reread it a couple of times before it would parse correctly, though I never thought GP meant sex. What sorts of sexual fetishes did Victorian-era people have that involved arsenic? o.0
GP said checking account. Didn't say anything about not having a savings account.
The game is planned for the PS2, PS3, PSP, mobile devices, Xbox 360, Wii, and DS.
I'm sure this isn't the first game with a PS2 AND a PS3 release (thought it is the first one I've noticed), but it seems like it says something when, in addition to all the current gen systems, a company also releases a game to a single last gen system. I just wish I knew what.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
Now that I think about it.. back when I was a wage-slave to Big Chicken, they did supply our uniforms (hat, shirt, and pants) at no cost to us. Although if we wanted the special slip-resistant shoes we had to buy them ourselves. I guess because that wasn't a required part of the uniform.
Interesting... does that mean I can bill my employer for the clothes I wear at work, the transportation I use to get to and from work, the residence I go to to become refreshed for the next work day, etc?
I'm sure you don't actually think that, but I'm curious why there is a difference between all those items, and an internet connection.
Those who expect to lead the grasshoppers life while I lead the ants life and then compel my kid through economics to care for them in their old age in addition to caring for me, well, I WANT them to go take a nap in the snow.
I just want to make one thing clear. There is a huge difference between someone who wishes/expects to be pampered and coddled and sit on their lazy ass while hard-working individuals care for them, and someone who has no problem paying their way, but is not interested in playing society's little games. I agree that the former are assholes. But near as I can tell you either disagree that there is a difference and feel that both should share the same lack of rights/freedoms/privileges (which I notice you still fail to define), or I simply hadn't made myself clear enough.
And unless you honestly believe Monty Python's sketch, you really shouldn't make the argument that a sperm and an egg are conscious individuals, and that when joined, they form a being that is equal to the sum of its parts. Since you seemed to be ok with birth control (though only under certain conditions), I figured you probably don't believe that.
There's a difference between choosing to download some package, and having a "fix it" button. "Fix it" implies that what you are being sent will work on your current system, which I believe is what TFA is trying to get at.
It's an interesting concept, but not everyone does agree with the existence of the death penalty.
"Then it should be abolished."
I'm sure there are plenty of people who do not agree with jury duty, but that doesn't mean it should be abolished.
Perhaps.. to expand upon the idea, if the randomly chosen citizen can't pull the lever, that inmate gets life in prison? Sounds kinda unfair though.
Just to be clear, I agree with the concept of the death penalty, but I believe in the old saying "better a hundred criminals go free, than one innocent person be put away", and am not confident that the government hasn't ever accidentally executed anyone, and am not confident that it won't happen in the future.
Birth control for people in their 30s who have families already is not the same as using birth control to neuter yourself and live a self-centered life forever.
I guess I've got no problem restricting certain things to those tasked with raising the next generation (we'll leave just what those things are for another day), but no one ever asked to be born. Some of us just want to live out our lives quietly without interfering in the affairs of others, and if any of these "adult privileges" of which you would have taken from people like that includes such rights as the right to decide for oneself how to treat ones body (smoking, drinking, drugs both recreational and medicinal, etc), well, that I've got a serious problem with.
Not an attack against you personally, but you leave "adult privileges" undefined, so I can only guess what is included in such.
A well-armed lamb is just as frightening and dangerous as a wolf.
And I believe that's exactly the point, to get everyone on equal ground.
If just one exists?
Your previous sentence is based on the wolves outnumbering the sheep. Make up your mind.
The ratio of wolves to lambs is irrelevant, but if you've any further complaints against the quote, I suggest you take them up with one Mr Benjamin Franklin. :P
I may be mistaken, but I believe the point Ben Franklin was making with that quote was that the wolves are already well-armed (teeth and claws), we're just leveling the playing field by arming the lamb.
Except for the fact that the bat population would drop short-term, other bug populations would grow, and bats would become predators on them, restoring equilibrium.
I did not figure mosquitoes were competing on resources with other bugs, so I did not figure other bug populations would grow until after the bats disappeared from some theoretical disease.
And just to clarify, I have no doubt that life will continue to survive and evolve until our sun goes red-giant in 5 billion years or so. If we kill all mosquitoes, in the long term it won't have really mattered. But it just might matter enough in the short term.
It's possible. Notice that nowhere did I say how probable it was, I was merely pointing out a scenario where it could have far reaching effects beyond what one might expect from destroying all of a simple species of bug. That was all I was doing, nothing more, nothing less.
Please, lets try and keep this thread joke free, as I was being completely serious when I mentioned running through the door. Unlike the dozen or so other posts of a similar nature.
Which speaking of.. it kind of amuses me that, despite being the only person to point out seriously that TFS is flawed in its attempt to indicate that running through a burning door is a stupid idea, my comment is somehow redundant.
1) MAD only works if all sides want to continue living (I don't know how the middle east actually feels, just bringing up a point to indicate why it doesn't always work).
2) Going back to the cold war (which I can only guess is what you meant when you said that MAD is an ok tactic for the west), I don't think it was ever an intentional tactic in the west, merely a way of stating that being tied with the enemy is acceptable, just don't fall behind.
Definitely eliminating the mosquitoes is what he should be working for. I am sure they server no ecological role at all.
I can't tell if you're being serious with that comment or not.
At any rate, just to play Devil's Advocate here and name at least one situation where they could play a significant ecological role, off the top of my head I'm sure it'd effect the bat population. Which in turn could effect the populations of other bugs, causing them to grow. Sure, initially the bat population would just shrink to fit their reduced food sources, and the other bug populations would remain unchanged, but a shrunken population means less diversion between the bats which makes them more susceptible to, say, an illness wiping them all out, which then the other bugs populations would grow.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
I suppose if we're all lambs, then it doesn't matter. But if just one wolf exists, then no, owning a weapon does not automatically make someone a "narrow minded, violent brute".
You forgot one.
Sixth - Make sure all doors which have been deemed emergency exits will not open until up to 30 seconds after you push up against them.
I know it sounds stupid.. hell, I agree that it is stupid to make an emergency exit function in such a manner, but the point of your list seems to be enhancing the simulation to accurately reflect reality, and making emergency doors that open instantly doesn't.
If anyone is wondering where I've encountered such doors, just ask anyone staying in the dorms of UMBC.
Am I the only one who remembers the basic concept of "Stop, Drop, and Roll"? If I was in a burning building, and came across a burning door, if it led to the outside you bet your ass I'd run right through it. Better a few scorch-marks from flames that can be put out by such a simple concept, than the alternative of burning to death.
Man, I hate Tuesdays.
But it's Wednesday...